Tuesday Results Show Democrat Strength, Serve as Bad Omen for Williams

You're probably thinking, "Come on! Tuesday's election results have been picked over by blogger buzzards like a three-day old zebra carcass on the Serengeti!" Sorry, but there's still meat on dem bones.

The main storyline locally is that the Democratic Party's slated candidates fared extremely well. Sheriff candidate Colonel John Layton received 61% of the vote in his race against Mark Brown, while prosecutor candidate Terry Curry received 64% against current Marion County Assessor Greg Bowes. Countywide, in fact, the only slated candidate who lost was Charles Gaddy, who was defeated by Maxine King, the incumbent Small Claims Judge in Wayne Township. King's victory further cements my hypothesis that African-American woman are natural slate busters, in particular when their names are at the top of the alphabet. For historical evidence, see Billie Breaux (Jean, too, I think), Kim Brown, Linda Brown, and Julia Carson. I'm sure I'm missing others, so throw them in my comment box.

Anyway, Tuesday was well-oiled Democratic party machinery on display.

If Democratic mayoral contender Brian Williams was contemplating going through slating in 2011, he can't be now. If the Democratic Party's heavyweights (or "insiders" if you prefer) can rope so many of their more detached kindred spirits to support Curry and Layton, imagine how persuasive they'll be among their Precinct Committeepersons (PCs).

Further, while I'm still calculating the numbers, quite a few of the PCs that came from the Williams camp's initial submission of close to 200 new PCs were defeated on Tuesday, making his slating prospects even more gloomy, though Williams did succeed in placing over 100 in empty precincts, and those folks with stay. Nonetheless, I believe we've entered the "primary planning phase" for the Williams campaign.

Across the aisle, the Republican Party's main guy, Dennis Fishburn only captured 55% in a race against Bart McAtee.

Some may rightfully contend that my comparison is unfair because neither Bowes nor Brown had the money McAtee did. Had McAtee been unable to afford his last week radio barrage, Fishburn might have weighed in around 62-64%, just like the Dems. Maybe, but McAtee was a guy rank and file GOP apparatchiks branded a patronage sopping turncoat, and the fact they couldn't convince their less ideologically committed brethren to believe it tells you that the operation ruptured along the communication chain.

This notion is reinforced by the fact the GOP's slated candidate for 7th District Congress, Carlos May, lost with 37% in a three-way race to perennial candidate for something, Marvin Scott. Scott didn't have a last (or any minute) media blitz. How do you explain his victory? Many will contend that "Marvin Scott" name ID trumped all. If so, the GOP foot soldiers failed to dissuade their own from selecting a guy who got bucked on all of his four prior ballot rodeos (U.S. House - 1994, U.S. House - 1996, U.S. Senate - 2000, U.S. House - 2004).

(As a quick aside, don't you love how the Republican Party's "new leadership" consists of Dan Burton, Dan Coats, and Marvin Scott, three guys who were on the ballot in 1996? It's like the GOP is using Mr. Peabody's Wayback Machine for candidate recruitment.)

Did "nativism" or prejudice cost Carlos May? Stay tuned....

...up next...

...A Shameful Moment for the Democratic Party...and.....

...Let's Play Name Combat!

Tuesday Results Show Democrat Strength, Serve as Bad Omen for Williams

Election Day Roundup for Marion County!

Ahhhh! Time to wake up and smell the democracy! In Marion County, both parties have intriguing matchups that will test their organizational strength.

On the Republican side, Bart McAtee is running for sheriff against the party's slated candidate, Dennis Fishburn, a guy who until the party stalwarts started chipping in, had raised only slightly above the square root of zero. On April 9, 2010, however, Fishburn reported raising $54,000 in the quarter with $24,000 cash on hand (c-o-h).

Fishburn's report makes for interesting reading. On the upside, every living Hoosier with the name Fishburn donated, so at least you know the family reunions are cordial. Unfortunately, Indiana law requires candidates to identify by name and address every donor who gives $100 or more, and Team Fishburn botched up that operation. There are several names who break the reporting threshold but no address is provided. (For example, Dave Young and Randall Elliott gave $700 and $500 respectively, and we have absolutely no information about them. But my personal favorite entry (and I am not making this up) reads simply:

Paul
"Ponytail" Paul

Nice to know a potential candidate for sheriff is getting cash from guys with hitman nicknames.

Also, on April 9, 2010, Fishburn actually reports a total of eleven donations of $200 each from “anonymouses” (if that’s the plural). Oh, Dennie! Your treasurer screwed the pooch, my friend. You were obviously trying to keep these donors below the radar, but unfortunately, they can only donate up to $99 to do that. Yes, you filed an amended report claiming that it was just $2,700 in "unitemized cash," but we already know you're lying because you broke them down into $200 increments on the initial report. (I'm guessing these are guys working for McAtee now who can't stand him?)

For his part, McAtee has been a money horse. He started the quarter with $89,000, and raised another $76,000, and he spent it all by 4-9-2010 securing radio time and paying his media consultants well in advance. Then in the eleven days after the 4-9 deadline, he filed 6 supplemental reports for large donations, pulling in a total of $26,500.

McAtee's radio ad, which has been in heavy rotation on WXNT shows like Glen Beck, is typical, tough guy hockum that revs up the law and order crowd. In the ad, McAtee states that he will never release a prisoner without a court order..."even if they have to sleep in my office." Great idea! Maybe if you can also teach them some computer skills, they can go into the workforce upon release.

This is a test for the Marion County GOP because last go round, McAtee (gasp) endorsed Democrat Frank Anderson and, according to a wickedly funny mailer sent out by the GOP, finagled almost $500,000 worth of McAtees onto Anderson's payroll. If McAtee prevails, it will tell you pretty conclusively that either Republicans think Frank Anderson is a pretty good sheriff or Marion County GOP party muscle is more atrophied than Abe Vigoda's biceps. I vote for A & B.

The Democrats face a similar showdown in their contests for sheriff and prosecutor. In the Sheriff's race, slated Democrat Colonel John Layton has been going like gangbusters on the money chase with $133,000 c-o-h after the April 9 deadline, and he has cut his own "I'm a general bad(expletive)" law enforcement ad:


While most people in party circles (myself included) are impressed with Mark Brown, Layton seems a more natural fit as a guy who had 35 years experience in the sheriff's office and a leadership role under Anderson's entire tenure. (Brown is a 24-year veteran of IPD).

The most bizarre aspect of this contest, though, has been the blowback some African-American leaders, including Congressman Andre Carson, have received for supporting Layton, a caucasian, over Brown, an African-American. This nicely cements my belief that black folk bear race burdens white people will never have. When I made my decision to support Carson over David Orentlicher, nobody white said anything, even in a whisper. Ironically, some African-American leaders in the party wanted David O.'s head on a plate because he ignored the slating decision and ran against Carson in the primary. The idea that now some of these same folks are upset because the Congressman is respecting the slate is the epitome of crazy. (You do you, Congressman. I, and a multitude of others, have your back!).

In the prosecutor's race, Marion County Assessor Greg Bowes has released a barrage of Youtube ads. Each starts with some catchy Muzak playing while Bowes' logo is displayed on top a background of a blurred, undulating flag (think being really drunk at a VFW hall). Then a title screen appears, which states, "Greg Bowes Talks About...(Justice)(Freedom)(The Constitution)(Leadership)(Hard Work)(Public Officials & White Collar Crime)(Apple Pie).

Okay, I made up the thing about Apple pie, but you get my point. When you use these kind of topics, you have to expect a degree of schmaltz and some platitudes, and Bowes does not disappoint.

Of course, the ad format of a candidate talking to an unseen person is genius, which is why this approach is commonly employed by service industries. First, you don't suffer the bad acting that you normally get in ads where a candidate is looking straight into the camera. Second, it's somehow easier psychologically to accept that Bowes isn't trying to con you because, even though we all know his ads are made for public consumption, we're more like tourists observing than part of the conversation.

The problem is that unless you have Michael Bloomberg money, there's no way you can get these ads anywhere except on Youtube or on your website. Each of Bowes' segments are between 90-120 seconds in length, and most local campaigns are lucky if they can do two or three 30-second ads during the entire campaign. Will people who see these like Bowes? Probably, but those hundred people will also roll their eyes because only half of the segments have dairy-free "scripts." You can see them all here.

Bowes' opponent, Terry Curry, held a dominant fundraising lead over Bowes on April 9, and more importantly, has been the beneficiary of a phone banking program, proving that slating has its benefits. If both Curry and Layton carry the day as expected, even with inferior ballot placement in both cases, it will show the Marion County Democratic Party is stretching its legs.

On the GOP national side, the GOP's day, I fear, will come to epitomize the phrase more equal less. Dan Coats is expected to win the five-way fight for the GOP nomination, but not because he's wowed anybody, rather because nobody else in the fiel can get a higher plurality. The same thing will likely be true in Dan Burton's Congressional seat. Sigh.

Stay tuned...

Election Day Roundup for Marion County!

Bowes On Tax Presents

It's gotta feel good to get to tell the pundits, "How do you like me now?"

A day after I went on Abdul in the Morning and stated that Marion County Assessor Greg Bowes was in a tough position in his bid to become prosecutor because he works in an office that routinely gives bad news (passes out property tax bills), he announced that tax bills will be on time for the first time in four years, and an astounding 82% of rate payers will be seeing decreases in their property taxes. Nine percent will see decrease of 10% or more, Bowes states.

That's an awful lot of good cheer he gets to spread for 2010.

Of course, it comes with a cost to government services. Wish-TV reports the likelihood of further cuts in the arts and parks budgets because of lost property tax revenue. I understand that when money gets tight, "recreation" seems a lesser priority than core services, such as public safety. But when the outgoing Republican council prez, Bob Cockrum, tells you the public safety, police, and fire budgets can have some fat trimmed out of them, I listen.

I hope the council will go get that money first before making more cuts in arts and parks; otherwise, everything that makes Indianapolis a good place to live will suffer.

Bowes On Tax Presents

How Greg Bowes Is Right and Why It Won't Save Him (My Opus in Response to His Opus)

Marion County Assessor and prosecutorial candidate, Greg Bowes (D), dropped a four-paged, single-spaced letter that was the the campaign equivalent of War and Peace into D precinct committeeperson mailboxes this week. Bowes should expect to feel more war and less peace.

The letter's main points are:

(1) Bowes is qualified to be prosecutor based on his 25 jury trials and 85 criminal appeals in attempted murder, rape, child molest, and battery cases;

(2) Bowes is the most viable candidate because he won county-wide, managed a large office, and "successfully navigated the intense scrutiny that came with the property tax crisis" (as an aside, he did?); and

(3) The D's new slating agreement is unfair, so he won't sign it.

For the newbies, let's do a quick "slating 101."

Before the primary election lets self-identified D's, R's, or L's to decide who are "their" parties' candidates, the parties' hold "primary conventions" during which only precinct committee people get to choose who "the party" endorses. Why, you might ask, would parties host what is essentially a mini-primary before an actual primary?

Precinct committeepersons register voters, put up yard signs, staff the polls, and get out the vote. PCs do this for free (except in Lake County where precinct organizations routinely seek "walking around money" from statewide candidates). Slating is the one PC perk (if you discount getting invited to State Representative Greg Porter's annual barbecue. Tasty!)

Parties want to reward hard work, but when patronage got snuffed, this was what was left - the right to participate in a non-smoke-filled room with people who really are the party.

I understand the appeal. It's not right (or productive) that two DINOS (Democrats in name only) who never donate to, work for, or advocate for, the party's candidates might trump a PC's primary vote. It's like letting people who never show up for church but who call themselves Catholic have a vote equal to the members of the church board. This is why I support the general idea of slating.

But here's the problem. It's easily rigged.

The voting pool consists of all elected precinct committeepersons and their appointed vice-committeepersons, but Democrats never have enough elected PCs (those who run as candidates in the precincts they actually reside) to fill all the slots. According to Bowes, the current number of elected folk is only 260.

One might think, "Well, that's your voting pool. Go to it." Oh, no, my friends. State party rules gives county chairs the right to fill vacant slots, and the appointed PC need not reside in the vacant precinct. This appointment right is a commonly employed perquisite in Marion County politics. To illustrate how abuse might occur, here's a conversation I had within the last eighteen months:

Me: (Ring, Ring). Hello?
Caller: Would you like to be a precinct committee person?
Me: Sure. What do I need to do?
Caller: Do you like (insert candidate's name)?
Me: Yeah.
Caller: You're good.
Me: Is this in my precinct?
Caller: No, it's (insert township ward and precinct).
Me: It doesn't matter I live downtown?
Caller: No.

Shortly after slating, Marion County consolidated its precincts, and I lost my "home precinct."

Nobody can dispute Greg Bowes is putting it in Ed Treacy's eye when he writes "one might also think that the MCDP county chair might want to wait until PCs and VPCs have made their decision before he takes any action in support of one candidate or another." But Bowes is right that appointing PCs (or removing them) before slating is the best way to "stack a slating field."

Bowes is also right that this system can circumvent geographic representation, as some townships can gain a disproportionate share of influence by having its members spread throughout the vacant PC slots county-wide. This is completely counter-intuitive because a D PC working the "hard areas," such as Franklin Township, shouldn't see his or her vote diluted. There is little incentive to work for candidates hoisted upon you by perceived (or actual) political manipulation.

Admittedly, if the county chair likes your person or cause, you'd love the current system. By the way, guess who gets to elect the county chair? PCs! But my rule of thumb for how anything should be fairly structured is, "How would we set it up without regard to how it works for us right now?"

Unfortunately, that's not how we operate, and as a result, few candidates have confidence in the slating process, which makes slate challenges all the more likely. And this is the value of the new agreement.

One might think that the best way for the party to fend off slate challenges is to just destroy the unslated candidates in the primaries, right? Great idea. Except the MCDP gets beat often, in particular by African-American candidates (in particular women) with names at the top of the alphabet.

Bowes notes that people who have run against the slate include such party stalwarts as Julia Carson, Rozelle Boyd, Bill Crawford, and Billie Breaux (and I'll add both Linda and Kim Brown).

Normally, you "freeze out" or punish your political opponents, but if the MCDP loses a slating fight, the second the election results are certified, those opponents are the MCDP's candidates with whom it has to play kissy-face. Moreover, if a slate buster is part of a key D constituency group (such as African-Americans, labor, GLBT), the county chair can't even bash him or her publicly for fear of alienating the larger constituency, which might sit it out and damage the remaining slate.

That's got to be pretty frustrating for a county chair.

What to do, what to do.

So Ed Treacy put forth an idea in consultation with elected county Democrats. Here's how it works. You pay the slating fee, which is 10% of the salary of the office you seek. Normally, all but 25% of this would be refundable to unslated candidates.

Under the revised plan, you sign an agreement that says if you are not slated, you may not run in the primary. If you do, you forfeit your slating fee in total, and you cannot participate in slating for six years. The agreement also says that, if you are slated, you must be listed on promotional materials with the slate, the whole slate, and nothing but the slate. If you are an elected official, you must back all future slates during your term. If you do not comply on either count, you get the six-year ban.

I like this idea on the surface. If you swim in our pool, you don't get to pee in it with impunity. The idea that elected officials must back their fellow Democrats is appropriate. But will we actually enforce it equally? It would have been really amusing seeing Linda Brown not support her own sister, Kim, had this agreement been in place earlier.

But herein lies Ed's genius. He didn't get this approved by precinct folks. He got it approved by elected officials. This agreement is theoretically iron-clad, incumbent protection. It says "us and only us." Where can a candidate who isn't slated turn for comfort? Not to the party apparatus!

Now Ed just has to hold it all together. I'm told he approached some affinity groups about committing to only backing the slated candidates, too, but it was rough going. That's not surprising. Can anybody see labor standing with somebody who is lukewarm on their issues, or the Stonewall Democrats backing a homophobe, just because they were slated?

In sum, Ed Treacy has a good idea. And Greg Bowes knows how to make it better. But I don't see this peanut butter to coming together with this chocolate anytime soon. I'm pretty sure only one of these guys is still viable in Marion County Democratic politics.

How Greg Bowes Is Right and Why It Won't Save Him (My Opus in Response to His Opus)